« Sad: Concerned Parents Get Into Public Row Over Which Pre-School Program Criminal Street Gang Their 4-Year-Old Son Should Join |
Main
|
Senior Aid To al-Sadr Dies of Type II Diabetes as Well as Type II Gunshot Trauma, But Mostly Type II Gunshot Trauma »
April 11, 2008
The Global Warming "Consensus" Machine In Real Time: How a BBC Article Noting Temperatures Had Not Increased Since 1998 Became, An Hour and 16 Minutes Later, a Story About the Inevitability of Global Warming
New science? Nope. Facts wrong? Nope.
Just a global warming activist who emailed the editor and, after some back and forth, the editor capitulated to her view that the BBC ought not to present actual facts which might cast doubt on the theory of anthropogenic global warming.
Must read. The editor goes from defending the article, noting that is is completely true, to capitulating in the activists' demand that "no doubt" over greenhouse gas warming must be permitted at the BBC.
I actually found this in this morning's Global Warming search, but J-Dub just told me to post it. I wasn't sure it was juicy enough, but now I see it his way.
One definite take-away: Compare this editor's capitulation to this lefty eco-activist with the snide and fuck-you type responses Patterico typically receives from the LAT, even when he catches the LAT in a clear, demonstrable factual misstatement.
Politically, you are who you read, who you talk to, who you consider to possess opinions even worth considering. Patterico's basically batting .112 with the LAT on its gross factual misstatements; here the BBC is all to eager to rewrite (and re-headline) a completely factual story to push a conclusion not supported by the facts of the story itself just to avoid that most insidious of intellectual states, "doubt" over things "we all know are true."
Oh... J-Dub tells me he got this from S. Weasel, who's also writing about it.
Corrected: An hour and sixteen minutes, not sixteen minutes. Sheesh, even I should have caught that -- how could eight emails be sent in sixteen minutes?
Bart corrected me on that, and also notes that I just rolled over for J-Dub the way the BBC rolled over for Jo the Global Warming Alarmist.
Well... sort of. It was really a question of 1) How sharp a post can I get out of this and 2) do I really want two global warming stories up nearly back to back?